JPO’s Initiatives for World‘s Best Examination Quality January, 2015 JAPAN PATENT OFFICE

Application Foreign Patent Offices Examination Information etc. Request for Improvement, revisions, etc. Users (Applicants, Patent Attorneys) Notices (Reason for Refusal, Decision to Grant etc.) Evaluation Advice Quality Policy/Manual Planning quality management initiatives Developing systems for quality management Check whether the management policy, procedures, and systems have been established Check whether quality management that has been implemented complies with the policy and procedures Subcommittee on Examination Quality Management Internal Quality Management Committee Quality Management Officer Patent Examination (Substantive Examination) Formality Check Approval (Quality Check) Administrative Affairs Division / Quality Management Office Commissioner Deputy Commissioner JPO Examination Divisions IT Systems Laws Exam. Standards Personnel Recruitment Training Outsourcing Search Ability Development (Participating Training) Assignment of Classification QMS - Quality Management System in JPO Quality Management Initiatives Providing Information User Satisfaction Survey Quality Audit Feedback Reporting Analysis / Evaluation Results Giving Advice on itiatives Details of the Audit Procedure Opinion Hearing

2 JPO’s Examination System / Quality Management System The four Examination Departments are divided into 38 examination divisions to conduct examinations on each technical field. About 130 Directors are assigned to the units. In April 2014, 90 Quality Management Officers that conduct quality audits were assigned to the Administrative Affairs Division. All of them were allocated to all of the examination divisions. In August 2014, the Subcommittee on Examination Quality Management consisting of 11 external experts was established under the Intellectual Property Committee of the Industrial Structure Council, METI. The Subcommittee was designed to review and evaluate the current state of and the systems for quality management of the examination procedures at the JPO. Commissioner Deputy Commissioner Policy Planning and Coordination Department Trademark and Customer Relations Department Patent and Design Examination Department 1 Patent and Design Examination Department 2 Patent and Design Examination Department 3 Patent and Design Examination Department 4 Trial and Appeal Department General Coordination Division Trademark Division Design Division Quality Management Office (management) (P) Quality Management Officer (audit) (P) Examination Division Internal Quality Management Committee (Analysis)(P) Subcommittee on Examination Quality Management Japan Patent Office (JPO) Intellectual Property Policy Committee of the Industrial Structure Council (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) Examination Division Administrativ e Affairs Division

3 Quality Assurance of Patent Examinations (1) Approval Substantive and formality checks on examinations by Directors by checking notices prepared by examiners Examiner Z Directors are responsible for the quality of examinations for the technical fields for which they are in change. Directors Check the content of notices Approval Send back Deficiencies Examiner A Send Notices that need be corrected will be fed back to examiners. All notices Examiner B

4 Quality Assurance of Patent Examinations (2) Consultation Examiners share opinions with each other to share their expertise such as search know-how and knowledge that they have gained through from based on the knowledge and experience of all examiners. They do this in order to reduce discrepancies in terms of searches and decisions and conduct prompt and appropriate examinations. Examiner in chargeExaminer in consulting Examiner in charge Examiner in consulting Director in consulting Types of consultations (1) Voluntary consultations (2) Obligatory consultations for cases that meet certain requirements. Example: straight-grant cases, i.e., cases in which examiners immediately decide to grant patents without sending notices of reasons for refusal (3) Consultations to be conducted on PCT applications based on standardized criteria using check sheets Consultations are conducted between examiners of the same examination division, but in some cases, they are conducted with a Director or an examiner of another examination division. Around 60,000 cases per year (in 2013)

5 Work Environment of Examination Division Supervised by Director Associate Managing Examiner Director Managing Examiner The offices of the examination divisions are located in large rooms appropriate for conducting consultations with each other. Group A Group C Group B Group D Group E Space for group meeting Achieving desirable work environment to encourage communications among examiners 3 to 4 Directors are allocated to each examination division. The seating layout is by the group of examiners in the division. Certain space is allocated in the office for group discussions.

6 6 Feedback Sample check Quality Audit Sample check ・ Check Drafts ・ Understands Invention ・ Searches ・ Judges ・ Check Drafts Deficiencies Researchers in QMO with no experience in examination Types of notices Reasons of refusal Examiner Examination Office A Examination Office B Examination Office Z Quality Check (1) Quality audit Quality Management Officers experienced in examination Types of notices ISR/WO-ISA Decision to Grant

7 Quality Check (2) User Satisfaction Survey The JPO has been conducting its user satisfaction surveys since fiscal In fiscal 2014, 91.0% of users rated the JPO’s examination as 3 and higher on a scale of 5. Descriptions in notices of reasons of refusal, practices of inventive step, judgment without discrepancy positively affected the overall evaluation. The survey implied the need to improve the JPO’s examination procedures in terms of consistency in decisions, decisions on inventive step, and searches for foreign patent documents and non-patent documents. The entire report for fiscal 2013 is available at Evaluation on the examination quality for domestic patent applications (FY 2014 User Satisfaction Survey) Satisfied 47.0% Neutral 44.0% Dissatisfied 8.9% 5. Satisfied 2.7% 4: Somewhat Satisfied 44.4% 3. Neutral 44.0% 2: Somewhat Dissatisfied 8.4% 1: Dissatisfied 0.5% SatisfiedDissatisfied Important

Quality Check (3) Analysis of Discrepancies of Search Results between the JPO and other IP Offices Analyze the factors for any discrepancies in search results between the JPO and other IP offices for cases in which the JPO prepared its international search reports (ISRs) and the JPO examined PPH applications as the office of Earlier Examination (OEE). The analysis is conducted based on the JPO’s examination standards. Decision to grant patents Cited only A documents ISR Decision JPO 後続庁 （ OLE ） Foreign office = designated office (DO) Notice of reasons of refusal Are there any cited documents that have been newly added? Are cited documents able to deny novelty/inventive step based on the JPO’s examination standards? What are the reasons for omissions in cited documents? Feedback to the examination divisions and examiners in charge YES Office of Earlier Examination (OEE) International Search Authority (ISA) Notice of reasons of refusal Foreign office = Office of Later Examination (OLE)

9 Objective Evaluation and Check Subcommittee on Examination Quality Management The Subcommittee consists of a wide range of external experts from companies, legal communities, and academia, in order to further strengthen the JPO’s initiatives on quality management. The Subcommittee objectively reviews and evaluates the current state of and the systems for quality management of the examination procedures from the perspective of experts, in order to propose major points the JPO needs to improve. Issues to be discussed for evaluations as follows: Evaluation Items (1) State of development of documents such as “Quality Policy” and “Quality Manual”; (6) Initiatives to enhance the quality of examinations; (2) Definiteness in procedures for examinations and quality management; (7) Initiatives on quality checks; (3) Publishing examination results to the public and notifying all examiners of them; (8)Analysis on the quality of examinations and clear identification of issues (4) Organizational structure for conducting higher quality examinations; (9) Current state of improving policies, procedures, and organizational structures, i.e., (1) to (5) of the evaluation items, to achieve high quality examinations; and (5) Organizational structure for quality management system; (10) Initiatives to improve essential factors to achieve a better quality management system, i.e., (6) to (8) of the evaluation items.

10 Outline of proposed amendments to the Patent Act

11 Acceptance of Opinions on the Quality of Examinations At the JPO, the Quality Management Office is accepting opinions from users on the quality of examinations through its website, and by telephone and facsimile, so as to enhance the quality of examinations. Here is a screen of the JPO website that is used to submit opinions. Click! User (Applicant/ Representative) JPO Quality Management Office ＮＥＷ

12 Thank you for your kind attention! Examined by Japan Patent Office